Tuesday, November 18, 2014

According to
retired history professor Romila Thapar, “academics must question more” (The Hindu, October 27, 2014). She was
delivering the third Nikhil Chakravartty Memorial Lecture, eloquently titled: “To
Question or not to Question: That is the Question”. The problem addressed by
her was that “academics and experts shied away from questioning the powers of
the day”. So, she “urge[d]
intellectuals to resist assault on liberal thought”. In particular, she “asked
a full house of Delhi’s intelligentsia on Sunday why changes in syllabi and
objections to books were not being challenged”.

She was,
hopefully, misinformed. (I shudder to think of the alternative explanation for
this obvious untruth.) The recent changes in syllabi and objections to books by
pro-Hindu activists, both phenomena being summed up in the single name of Dina
Nath Batra, have met with plenty of vocal objections and petitions in protest,
signed by leading scholars in India and abroad. I myself have signed two such
petitions. At the European Indology conference in Zürich, July 2014, we were
all given a petition to sign in support of Wendy Doniger’s book The Hindus: an Alternative History,
which Batra’s judicial challenge had forced the publishers to withdraw. The
general opinion among educated people, widely expressed, was to condemn all
attempts at book-banning.

Selective indignation

To be sure, the
intellectuals’ indignation was selective. There have indeed been cases where
they have failed to come out in defence of besieged authors. No such storms of
protest are raised when Muslims or Christians have books banned, or even when
they assault the writers. Thus, several such assaults happened on the author
and publisher of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, yet at its annual conference,
the prestigious and agenda-setting American Academy of Religion hosted a panel
where every single participant, including the speakers from the audience,
supported the Muslim objections to the cartoons.

This trahison des clercs (“betrayal by the
intellectuals”) is aptly explained by Thapar herself: “There are more academics
in existence than ever before but most prefer not to confront authority even if
it debars the path of free thinking. Is this because they wish to pursue
knowledge undisturbed or because they are ready to discard knowledge, should
authority require them to do so?”

The point is
that the intellectual’s selective indignation shows very well where real
authority lies. Threats of violence are, of course, highly respected. The day
Hindus start assaulting writers they don’t like, you will see eminent historians
like herself turning silent about Hindu censorship, or even taking up its
defence -- for that is what actually happens in the case of Islamic threats. Even
more pervasive is the effect of threats to their careers. You will be in
trouble if you utter any “Islamophobic” criticism of Islamic censorship, but
you will earn praise if you challenge even proper judicial action against any
anti-Hindu publications. This, then, safely predicts the differential behaviour
of most intellectuals vis-à-vis free speech.

Box-type religions

A wholly
different point is that she shows her partisan affiliation by adopting a
secularized Christian framework when talking about Indian schools of thought.
According to the newspaper report, “tracing the lineage of the modern public
intellectual to Shramanic philosophers of ancient India, Prof. Thapar said the
non-Brahminical thinkers of ancient India were branded as Nastikas or
non-believers”. The division in Astika and Nastika already had different
meanings at the time (not even exhausted by the two main ones: Vedic vs.
non-Vedic, theistic vs. non-theistic), and did not coincide with the division
in Brahmana vs. Shramana. Ancient Indian thought was never divided in box-type
orthodoxies on the pattern of Christians vs. Muslims or Catholics vs.
Protestants. It is only a Western projection, borrowed as somehow more
prestigious by the Indian “secularists”, that imposes this categorization on
the Indian landscape of ideas. Buddhist thinkers were never treated as
dissenters, and even less so when Buddhism was politically in the ascendant.

She added an
interesting image: “I am reminded of the present day where if you don’t accept
what Hindutva teaches, you’re all branded together as Marxists.” The
heavy-handed Marxist predominance in Indian academe is a historical fact of
which she herself is a product as well as an icon, but now the notion is a bit
dated. Today, many opportunists have shifted their loyalty to more fashionable
new trends dictated by American universities, such as postmodernism,
postcolonialism, multiculturalism, feminism and the more native contribution of
subalternism. It is true that many Hindutva votaries are not up-to-date with
the latest academic fashions, frozen as these outsiders are in old slogans. At
any rate, the vibrant interaction of ancient India’s intellectual landscape,
where free debate flourished, was nothing like the modern situation where her
own school has locked out the Hindu voice and the latter has reactively demonized
her.

Power equation

In her view, “public
intellectuals, playing a discernible role, are needed for such explorations as
also to articulate the traditions of rational thought in our intellectual
heritage. This is currently being systematically eroded.” True, many
intellectuals are not guided by what is true or “rational”, but only by what
company they land up in if they get associated with a particular viewpoint.
Numerous persons in academe and the media have loudly sung the anti-Hindu or
“secular” tune when that was fashionable. Depending on how close their
institutional position is to the new Narendra Modi government, you
interestingly see many of them reposition themselves as somehow always having
been pro-Hindu.

As she aptly
said: “It is not that we are bereft of people who can think autonomously and
ask relevant questions. But frequently where there should be voices, there is
silence. Are we all being co-opted too easily by the comforts of conforming?”

But the power
equation is such that the comforts of conforming still lead most to the
anti-Hindu side. The opportunists changing sides are still a minority, the
anti-Hindu discourse remains the dominant one. The best proof is that the
ruling BJP, supposedly a Hindu party, is still acting out the worldview of the
“secularists”. They are not actively challenging it or changing the
intellectual power equation. It is perhaps fortunate for the Hindu side that
the “secularists” have denounced it for so long as a Hindu party, for that is
what makes the opportunists turn superficially pro-Hindu now.

So far, the
ruling party is not repeating Murli Manohar Joshi’s attempt (ca. 2002) to
rewrite the officially recommended history textbooks. That adventure ended in a
demonstration of Hindu incompetence, a complete reversal once the “secularists”
were back in power, and a strong reaffirmation of their intellectual
predominance. Even though the BJP is back in power now, it still hesitates to
challenge their conceptual framework.

Moral authority

According to
the newspaper: “Prof. Thapar stressed that intellectuals were especially needed
to speak out against the denial of civil rights and the events of genocide.”
Yes, the genocide accompanying the birth of Pakistan and later of Bangladesh
are two events that should not be forgotten, eventhough her own school has
tried to whitewash, minimize or obscure them. The largest religious massacre of
independent India’s history, that of the Sikhs by the Congress “secularists” in
1984, also comes in for closer scrutiny and for a demythologizing analysis
about the true nature of Congress dynasticism. On a smaller scale, Hindus have
also misbehaved, either out of smugness or out of desperation, and that too
deserves study; except that it has already been made the object of publications
so many times while the former subjects remain orphans.

The eminent
historian is quoted as observing: “The combination of drawing upon wide
professional respect, together with concern for society can sometimes establish
the moral authority of a person and ensure public support.” Indeed, the
impartisan nature of proper academic research would confer the moral authority
to intervene, sparingly, in ongoing public debates. It is therefore a pity that
so many scholars of her own school have squandered this moral authority by
being so brazenly partisan.

No reaction?

Finally, she reiterated her main point, namely “the ease with which books are
banned and pulped or demands made that they be burned and syllabi changed under
religious and political pressure or the intervention of the state. Why do such
actions provoke so little reaction from academics, professionals and others
among us who are interested in the outcome of these actions? The obvious answer
is the fear of the instigators — who are persons with the backing of political
authority.”

Again, Prof.
Thapar was misinformed. When Batra and other Hindus put publishers under
pressure to withdraw Wendy Doniger’s book or AK Ramanujan’s Three Hundred Ramayanas, the publishers
buckled under the fear of the Hindu public’s purchasing power. Apart from
ideological factors, entrepreneurs also have to take into account the purely
commercial aspect of a controversy. In this case, they took into account the only
power that Hindus have: their numbers. But the Hindu instigators did not
inspire “fear”, and definitely did not have “the backing of political
authority”.

It is strange
how fast people can forget. Modi has only very recently come to power. At the
time of the Ramanujan and Doniger controversies, Congress was safely in power.
If the publishers were in awe of any powers-that-be, it was of the Congress
“secularists”.

More
fundamentally, changes in government do not necessarily entail changes in the
dominant intellectual framework. The accession to power (or rather, to office)
of a nominally Hindu party does not mean that the ideological power equation
has changed. In spite of the lip-service paid to Hindu self-respect by a few
fashion-conscious opportunists, anti-Hindu “secularism” still rules the roost.
Even now it furnishes the set of assumptions that most intellectuals, and even
most ruling BJP politicians, go by.

5 comments:

I want to add one thing peculiar to Romila Thapar. For decades she has an infatuation with questioning and questioning only. Never mind the quality of questions. Nor any regard to finding answers. For instance, 'what a servant of Emperor Ashoka thought about his policies?'. Throwing such questions she believed a great originality, without minding whether such questions could ever be answered.The puerile habit is still with her. As the saying goes, 'how and why, no reply'. Endless questioning cannot be answered, and thus, the questioner may think herself a winner! This Romila plays to the hilt. Questioning and questioning (selective, of course) with an air of insurmountable superiority. Only it looks pathetic in the light of what KE has accurately analysed.

You're far too kind to Ms. Thapar, Prof. Elst. I, for one, do not believe that she is misinformed when she makes patently inaccurate statements - I simply think that she is LYING through her teeth. A practice made perfect through long diligence.

There can not be any better articulation about hipocrats like Romila in the garb of academia and Indian history experts. But they are more sinister and it is tragedy that an opportunity for Hindu party to correct history written by conquerors of a thousand years and after 67 years of ruin by retards and anti nationals, we have only cosmetic and band aid actions.

I have watched the live relay of this event on ndtv. I must confess that she is a passionate and impressive speaker who can convince the intellectually gullible people. As a fitting reply we should ask her : ‘To question or not to question romila thapar – that is the question’

Hindhu impotent rage ???!!! But how true ! One has to watch the internet warriors on the social media to see how impotent they are. They literally slam anyone who questions the irrational explanation given by dina nath batra, p.n.oak regarding the scientific accomplishments mentioned in the scriptures. Plus indulging in vulgar abuses against muslims and Christians who come to debate. I joined one group to wean the guys away from this kind of behavior and instead meaningfully discuss the dogma found in the abrahamic faiths and drawbacks in hindhuism. I flopped miserably and had to quit. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the miracles and other theories found in the books is not a hindhu at all, but a conspirator out to destroy hindhuism. They are unwittingly falling into a trap. Hindhu rage is indeed impotent due to misdirection.

I am not sure if romila thinks that success of modhi is due to this hindhu rage. If it is , then she is mistaken. Huge success of modhi is due to no-show by congress. If modhi fails to deliver on economy, then congress coalition will be back in the saddle in the next election. People like romila have planned to help congress by maintaining the anti-hindhu tempo by attacking the irrationality and intolerance exhibited by some prominent hindhus.

As you have quoted arun shourie – bjp is only interested in office , not power. They won’t do anything to change the power equation. Even the likes of Dr SuperMani Swamy who speaks boldly , is yet to challenge the abrahamics.

About Me

Koenraad Elst (°Leuven 1959) distinguished himself early on as eager to learn and to dissent. After a few hippie years he studied at the KU Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998.
As an independent researcher he earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state, the roots of Indo-European, the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute and Mahatma Gandhi's legacy. He also published on the interface of religion and politics, correlative cosmologies, the dark side of Buddhism, the reinvention of Hinduism, technical points of Indian and Chinese philosophies, various language policy issues, Maoism, the renewed relevance of Confucius in conservatism, the increasing Asian stamp on integrating world civilization, direct democracy, the defence of threatened freedoms, and the Belgian question. Regarding religion, he combines human sympathy with substantive skepticism.